Q. Is it possible to have your sins remitted, but not experience regeneration and the transformation of soul of which Hebrews 10:16 speaks?
A. No. They always happen together, in all cases. Anyone who is regenerate has been forgiven; anyone who has been forgiven has been born again. They are two inseparable branches of the new covenant.
Q. Is it possible to come to Christ without repenting of sin?
A. No. Christ offers himself as Savior for sin. His death was payment for our sins. Eternal life is the taking away of God’s eternal penalty of our sins. Calling on the Savior for salvation from your sins presupposes a change of heart about your spiritual status before God, and your own sins. You admit that you’re guilty of sin, where before you denied it. You want the problem of sin dealt with, instead of excusing sin, or reveling in it.
Q. What is the Gospel? Doesn’t it require a commitment to keep God’s laws?
A. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and following, is the most concise definition of the Gospel I find in the New Testament. It’s the one I use most frequently. Romans 12:1-2, on the other hand, is not the Gospel. The Gospel never requires anyone to keep God’s laws as a condition for eternal life.
Q. What condition(s) does God require, in order to have your sins justified?
A. Trust in the Gospel alone.
Q. Can a true Christian lead a worldly, carnal life?
A. Yes. Lot and Samson are examples of this from the Old Testament. Hebrews 11:32 says that Samson was a man of faith, and Peter called Lot a righteous man (2 Peter 2:7). Many in the Corinthian church were examples of this in the New Testament (1 Cor. 3:1-4). The Reformed writers who say that there is no such thing as a carnal Christian are flat wrong.
Q. Can a person’s lifestyle expose them as unregenerate, regardless of their claims?
A. Yes, see 1 John 3:7-14. The claim by certain hyper-free-grace people that there’s no connection between faith in Christ and how one lives one’s life, is antinomian and heretical.
Q. How can we tell the difference between an immature, worldly Christian, and a
“tare among the wheat”?
A. We might not always be able to tell, though often we can through careful examination. You will always find something defective in the individual’s view of Jesus Christ and/or the Gospel. Ultimately, God knows who belongs to him. The other eleven apostles didn’t even know Judas was a false believer, in spite of spending so much time with him. Some people hide their sins very well. However, anyone who is exposed as knowingly involved in sin and rebellion against the Lord should be regarded as a non-inheritor of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11), and put out of the church as a heathen, Gentile, and tax-collector (idioms meaning to regard them as non-Christians).
Q. What can explain significant moral laxity in a Christian?
A. There can be several possible reasons for significant moral laxity in a Christian. They could be regenerate, but have not presented their bodies to the Lord (Romans 12:1), and their thoughts are still greatly molded to the POV of the wicked world (Romans 12:2). They could have been taught a one-sided view of saving grace, in which they have only been taught about how the grace of God brings salvation (Titus 2:11), but not that the same grace teaches us to deny worldly lusts (Titus 2:12). In other words, they may haven been badly discipled, or perhaps not discipled at all. They might not have suffered enough (James 1:3-4). They might be proud or lazy, and either have failed to apply themselves to God’s word, or received it in pride rather than humbly (James 1:21). They might have been taught a hyper-intellectualized approach to Christianity, in which spirituality is defined by having every doctrinal I dotted and t crossed, but without action (James 1:22-25).
Q. Is it possible to be a Christian but be knowingly disobedient to Christ’s authority over your life?
A. Yes, for the following reasons:
• The Lord wouldn’t command us Christians to yield our bodies to God (Romans 6:12-13), or to fear God (1 Peter 2:17) and reject evil (1 Peter 3:11), if those attitudes were automatic, instinctive by-products of regeneration. Because Christians are told to obey these instructions, I assume it’s possible for us to disobey them.
• Peter said it is possible for Christians to be spiritually barren, unfruitful, short-sighted, and to forget our cleansing from sin (2 Peter 1:8-9). This happens because of a lack of diligence (1:10) in the hard work of adding to our basic faith the godly virtues listed in 2 Peter 1:5-7.
• Every sin we commit is an act of lawlessness (1 John 3:4). Since Christians can and do sin (1 John 1:8), therefore, when a true Christian willfully sins, he or she is rejecting Christ’s lordship.
• Lordship salvation teaching in this regard is a form of perfectionsm.
Q. Didn’t Christ tell the rich young ruler that he needed to be willing to give up everything, in order to be saved?
A. Yes and no. Christ never presented the Gospel to the rich young ruler. He reminded him of Moses’ laws, attempting to penetrate the young man’s cloud of self-deception about his own freedom from sin. Christ used the moral law in an attempt to bring conviction of sin. Moses’ law promises eternal life too, but, unlike the Gospel, it offers it on the condition of perfect obedience to the commandments. Christ was trying to make the young man see his own lost condition.
Q. Didn’t Christ teach that people need to hate their father and mother, take up their crosses daily, lay their hand to the plow for the kingdom and never look back, and other similarly demanding standards, in order to be saved?
A. No. It’s important to pay attention to the question of who the audience was. Christ taught those demands to people who were already professed disciples.
Q. Doesn’t the Sermon on the Mount teach rigorous demands for salvation?
A. Yes, because the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ exposition (and amending) of Moses’ law, but taught on the authority of His own deity. Christ never presents the Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount. In this sense, the Sermon is very similar to how he dealt with the rich young ruler. It was a pre-evangelistic message meant to strike conviction of sin into the listeners’ hearts.
Q. Doesn’t there have to be at least a willingness to keep the laws of God, in order to be saved?
A. Knowledge of the laws of God is foundational to a true grasp of the Gospel. The grace of God makes sense only to people who see that they are condemned for their sins. But you are not saved by a willingness to keep God’s commandments. The Gospel is about Christ dying on the cross. What did Christ die for? Christ died for your sins. He died for your sin of unwillingness to keep the laws of God. He died for your sin of unwillingness to keep the laws of God that you have committed after you became a Christian. So a willingness to keep the moral laws of God can’t be a condition for your justification, since (a) you cannot, and are not, going to consistently keep that commitment, and (b) Jesus already paid the price for your repeated failures to be willing to submit to His lordship.
Q. But can’t people foresee what living the Christian life is going to mean, what changes it will entail, and for those reasons they reject Christ?
A. Such a person is not yet repentant of their sins. Their desire to be master of their own fate is one of the sins for which Christ died, and for which they will be eternally condemned if they don’t call on Christ’s name to be saved. But the Gospel is not, “Surrender to Christ’s lordship over you, and you shall be saved.” You will never keep that commitment. You have not kept that commitment in the past. You are not now keeping that commitment, as God requires it be kept. I say this because, if it’s part of what God requires to justify you, then you must keep it perfectly. If a non-Christian asks you, “Do I have to surrender myself to Christ’s moral authority over me, to be saved?,” the reply is, No. You don’t live that way now, and you’re not going to live that way after you become a Christian in a way sufficiently good enough for God to consider you having met the requirement.
We are justified by one act of faith (Hebrews 10:14), not a lifetime of faithfulness. Besides, if we believe that new birth follows faith in Christ, then the Spirit of God’s holy law entering the living fabric of our heart (Hebrews 10:16) occurs after we trust in Christ. Unless you subscribe to the Reformed view, which is that new birth precedes and causes faith.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Elijah's Depression
I'm preaching on Elijah's depression this week. Here's just some thoughts to chew over. Why was Elijah depressed to the point of wanting to die?
Someone in the government was trying to murder him (19:2-3). Ever have someone trying to murder you for years at a stretch? I never have, and I hope I never do. This is a little worse than just having the deacon board mad at you over something. Elijah's emotional fiber was stretched to the limit, he had spent long months alone near a spring, hiding out from the government, and when the mighty miracle at the brook Kishon (18:36-40)failed to make any real dent in the situation in Jerusalem, he snapped.
He was (partly) driven by a negative perfectionistic aspiration (19:4). I was raised by a selfish, unfaithful father. I vowed to be nothing like him. But, spiritually and emotionally speaking, it wasn't enough for me to grow up by the vow, "I won't be anything like my dad." It's like a vortex. The fear of slipping down into parity with my father can eat at you. It's not an energizing motivation. It's driven by contempt and fear. You can't go through life haunted by the fear that you will fail, and be no better than your ancestors. You're already no better than your ancestors, when measured against the incomparable perfections of God. Might as well accept it, and take joy in the justice of your own justification through Christ's blood. Go ahead and sin boldly, Phillip, then repent boldly, too, because the righteousness that saves us is entirely external to us (Martin Luther).
He wasn physically weakened (19:5-8). He fled in a mad haste, and then blindly stumbled out into the desert on a doomsday mission. The Lord took pity on Elijah, gave him water in a jar, and fed him with a miraculous cake. God worked a miracle, to re-energize Elijah's physical body.
He was completely overpowered by feelings of isolation, injustice, and hopelessness (9-10). He felt like the lead in The Omega Man. He had been cruelly persecuted, even though he was the good guy in the story. The nation had gone to hell in a handbasket, his friends had been murdered, and he felt he was the only believer left. He was mistaken about that last part, by the way. God saved that bit for verse 18.
He misunderstood the power of God. I think this is the meaning of the events at the cave (the shattering wind, raging fire, and rolling earthquake, followed by a soft, gentle blowing). It's that little voice of the Spirit who turns people around -- not nature miracles. The nature miracles have their place, an important place. But they don't have any power to turn back the sinful heart.
How many people in the ministry are spiritually depressed because they...
1. Are being persecuted?
2. Are perfectionists?
3. Are not feeling physically strong and healthy?
4. Are oppressed by the viciousness of people?
5. Feel alone?
6. Are frustrated by the failure of their own God-given gifts?
Someone in the government was trying to murder him (19:2-3). Ever have someone trying to murder you for years at a stretch? I never have, and I hope I never do. This is a little worse than just having the deacon board mad at you over something. Elijah's emotional fiber was stretched to the limit, he had spent long months alone near a spring, hiding out from the government, and when the mighty miracle at the brook Kishon (18:36-40)failed to make any real dent in the situation in Jerusalem, he snapped.
He was (partly) driven by a negative perfectionistic aspiration (19:4). I was raised by a selfish, unfaithful father. I vowed to be nothing like him. But, spiritually and emotionally speaking, it wasn't enough for me to grow up by the vow, "I won't be anything like my dad." It's like a vortex. The fear of slipping down into parity with my father can eat at you. It's not an energizing motivation. It's driven by contempt and fear. You can't go through life haunted by the fear that you will fail, and be no better than your ancestors. You're already no better than your ancestors, when measured against the incomparable perfections of God. Might as well accept it, and take joy in the justice of your own justification through Christ's blood. Go ahead and sin boldly, Phillip, then repent boldly, too, because the righteousness that saves us is entirely external to us (Martin Luther).
He wasn physically weakened (19:5-8). He fled in a mad haste, and then blindly stumbled out into the desert on a doomsday mission. The Lord took pity on Elijah, gave him water in a jar, and fed him with a miraculous cake. God worked a miracle, to re-energize Elijah's physical body.
He was completely overpowered by feelings of isolation, injustice, and hopelessness (9-10). He felt like the lead in The Omega Man. He had been cruelly persecuted, even though he was the good guy in the story. The nation had gone to hell in a handbasket, his friends had been murdered, and he felt he was the only believer left. He was mistaken about that last part, by the way. God saved that bit for verse 18.
He misunderstood the power of God. I think this is the meaning of the events at the cave (the shattering wind, raging fire, and rolling earthquake, followed by a soft, gentle blowing). It's that little voice of the Spirit who turns people around -- not nature miracles. The nature miracles have their place, an important place. But they don't have any power to turn back the sinful heart.
How many people in the ministry are spiritually depressed because they...
1. Are being persecuted?
2. Are perfectionists?
3. Are not feeling physically strong and healthy?
4. Are oppressed by the viciousness of people?
5. Feel alone?
6. Are frustrated by the failure of their own God-given gifts?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Are Christians Automatically Conservative?
It depends on what you mean by "conservative", doesn't it? That word is bandied about without much definition.
I haven't read Edmund Burke more than brief quotations here and there, but based on what I recall, the classical Burkean brand of British conservatism took a cautious approach to reforming the systems and structures of society. It took the view that society's patterns and structures developed over a long period of time, and that rapid change was potentially destructive. It was essentially a "take-it-slow" view of managing society, reflecting a high respect for societal traditions, and a strong desire not to turn the community upside-down. The Brits were horrified by what they heard happening in France during the Terror, and I believe many writers pointed at the French Revolution as what they didn't want to happen. I think any thinking Christian can agree that the wholesale killing of the nobility in the Terror, including women and children, simply because of the social class to which they belonged, regardless of their actual conduct, was a monstrosity of bloodshed.
What we now call economic conservatism -- free-market capitalism -- was originally called economic liberalism in England, since its goal was to free up the creation and control of capital (which itself is a fairly elastic term, since "capital" can be material or intellectual resources) into the hands of as many people as possible. This was a radical break from the feudal system, in which the peerage controlled the land and means of production, and then, bound by Christian virtue and noblesse oblige, watched over the peasantry. Free-market capitalism is definitely not a socially conserving force. It is, as we can see all around us, a socially revolutionizing force. It is socialism (which makes the government the feudal baron, rather than members of the peerage) that promotes stagnation and a static society.
So conservatism could mean "preserving the best of society's patterns and traditions, and taking change slowly and deliberatively". It now is used in support of vigorous economic activity from the bottom up, to the point of near-libertarianism. The reverse of this is often called progressivism.
It does seem to me that it is impossible for any Christian to be a Christian and be a "progressive". For one thing, progressivism is, and always has been, strongly atheistic, whether you're thinking of Thomas Paine or Jean-Paul Sartre. So a Christian, by the very nature of his faith, cannot concur with this. Progressivism also exalts the power of human reason, and disparages any idea of a holy book or a divine revelation. A Christian cannot agree with this, either. We believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Progressivism is humanism applied to politics, and Christians by the very essence of our faith are not humanists.
So progressivism and Christianity are at loggerheads with each other on first precepts. Progressivism says that ultimate authority originates from man, Christianity says it is grounded in God. Progressivism says that reason alone is sufficient to determine truth, Christianity says that reason is darkened by sin, prone to error, and that there are realities that can only be known through divine revelation -- namely, the Bible. Along with these goes the question of creation. Progressivism denies any special, divine creation of man, while Christianity affirms it. As a result, progressivism also has no basis for innate human dignity, which I think is why it inevitably ends up treating people as tools of the collective. Considered in proportion, it's the Christians over the centuries, who kicked down the brothel doors of the world, rescued the exposed and unwanted babies abandoned by pagan parents on the mountains of Rome, built hospitals in malaria-infested areas of Africa and Asia, built orphanages -- not the atheists.
Christians can be lured into sympathy with progressivism on the surface level of issues. Exploitation of the poor, crimes committed by business corporations, the plundering of the community by vested interests -- Christians can "amen" these concerns as well as anyone else, and should. But a shared concern does not a true brother make. The Christian and the Progressive might object to the same wrongs, but we do so coming from two diametrically opposed places. Our ideological paths might run parallel to each other at times, but we are not walking the same road together.
So, by being Christians, are we automatically conservatives?
I think that anyone who takes the Bible seriously can't avoid becoming an ethical conservative. We believe in a fixed, unchanging reference point of truth (God). We believe in a divinely inspired document (the Bible). Consequently we believe that some actions are always right, and some actions are always wrong. We don't always live up to our own ethics. In fact, we usually don't (which is why we need a Savior). But our private inconsistencies do not disprove the truths we profess to be true. According to Christianity, truth, reality, and ethics do not evolve. The thesis and the antithesis never combine. This makes us ethical conservatives.
Do we automatically have to be economic conservatives? I suggest that a Biblical Christian cannot support laissez-faire capitalism, mostly because of the doctrine of the fallenness of man, and the Biblical definition of the responsibilities of government. The government has been charged with the responsibility of overseeing justice, the principle of which clearly includes all manner of economic exchange. The libertarian wants to declare the economy off-limits to government (including drug exchanges). This is unbiblical.
The Christian doctrine of human sin prevents us from idealizing business or government. It is not true that Business is good while Government is evil. It is not true that Business is evil while Government is good. The human race is evil. Only the Gospel can redeem Business or Government. A consistent understanding of sin should keep us from a false dualistic view, in which one or the other is the Good Guy. However, the State can do much more harm than business, because the State controls armaments. So the State is more dangerous.
Christianity is also anti-slavery, but when does a condition of enslavement come into being? Is Socialism enslavement? All States depend on the power to coercively confiscate goods and services from its citizens, usually in the representative form of money. This is taxation, and Romans 13 recognizes the State's right to collect taxes and duties. But it matters if the State does so on the grounds that no such thing as private property exists. This is enslavement, even if it is self-imposed through the ballot box. The Bible assumes the existence of private property, by its commandments against theft.
I suggest that Christianity automatically does push us into a kind of conservatism, but it's a "conservatism" that is unlike secular conservatism. We do not attribute final authority to time-honored tradition, in the Burkean sense. Slavery was an ancient tradition, but we were right to radically overthrow it (Robert E. Lee considered himself a conservative).
A Christian conservative does not consider government a "necessary evil." God is the King, He runs a government, and he created Adam and Eve in a governmental relationship, first to Himself, then in relation to each other. Government is a not a product of the Fall, it has been corrupted by the Fall.
We do not lionize business, even though we recognize that democratic capitalism has accomplished far more than socialism to advance man's living standards, invent new technologies, and create practical opportunities to improve one's own lot in life. Democratic capitalism breaks the chains of feudalism, and harnesses the psychological principles of competition and self-interest (neither of which can be eradicated from the human mind) to create achievement. But business is as tainted by sin as government is, because we are all foolish sinners.
Capitalism allows more people to irretrievably crash and burn when they fail, in the furious race that is democratic capitalism. So a Christian ethic -- neighbor love -- also requires us to take measures to mitigate the practical consequences of reaching for the goal-line and falling short. Those measures can be both private (charitable organizations) and public (for times when massive mobilization is needed). We should also support the government in punishing businesses that pursue their goals by force or deceit, such as the United Fruit Company (which exploited South American nations for decades), or Enron.
As Christians who believe in the fallenness of man, we do not believe that a perfect society is possible, and as creationists we do not believe that society is being propelled forward toward Utopia by some inner, unseen, mystically evolutional force. Because of our eschatology, we look forward to the cataclysmic return of Jesus Christ from heaven, when all will be made well. So in that sense of a macro-historical perspective, we are not progressives.
I haven't read Edmund Burke more than brief quotations here and there, but based on what I recall, the classical Burkean brand of British conservatism took a cautious approach to reforming the systems and structures of society. It took the view that society's patterns and structures developed over a long period of time, and that rapid change was potentially destructive. It was essentially a "take-it-slow" view of managing society, reflecting a high respect for societal traditions, and a strong desire not to turn the community upside-down. The Brits were horrified by what they heard happening in France during the Terror, and I believe many writers pointed at the French Revolution as what they didn't want to happen. I think any thinking Christian can agree that the wholesale killing of the nobility in the Terror, including women and children, simply because of the social class to which they belonged, regardless of their actual conduct, was a monstrosity of bloodshed.
What we now call economic conservatism -- free-market capitalism -- was originally called economic liberalism in England, since its goal was to free up the creation and control of capital (which itself is a fairly elastic term, since "capital" can be material or intellectual resources) into the hands of as many people as possible. This was a radical break from the feudal system, in which the peerage controlled the land and means of production, and then, bound by Christian virtue and noblesse oblige, watched over the peasantry. Free-market capitalism is definitely not a socially conserving force. It is, as we can see all around us, a socially revolutionizing force. It is socialism (which makes the government the feudal baron, rather than members of the peerage) that promotes stagnation and a static society.
So conservatism could mean "preserving the best of society's patterns and traditions, and taking change slowly and deliberatively". It now is used in support of vigorous economic activity from the bottom up, to the point of near-libertarianism. The reverse of this is often called progressivism.
It does seem to me that it is impossible for any Christian to be a Christian and be a "progressive". For one thing, progressivism is, and always has been, strongly atheistic, whether you're thinking of Thomas Paine or Jean-Paul Sartre. So a Christian, by the very nature of his faith, cannot concur with this. Progressivism also exalts the power of human reason, and disparages any idea of a holy book or a divine revelation. A Christian cannot agree with this, either. We believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Progressivism is humanism applied to politics, and Christians by the very essence of our faith are not humanists.
So progressivism and Christianity are at loggerheads with each other on first precepts. Progressivism says that ultimate authority originates from man, Christianity says it is grounded in God. Progressivism says that reason alone is sufficient to determine truth, Christianity says that reason is darkened by sin, prone to error, and that there are realities that can only be known through divine revelation -- namely, the Bible. Along with these goes the question of creation. Progressivism denies any special, divine creation of man, while Christianity affirms it. As a result, progressivism also has no basis for innate human dignity, which I think is why it inevitably ends up treating people as tools of the collective. Considered in proportion, it's the Christians over the centuries, who kicked down the brothel doors of the world, rescued the exposed and unwanted babies abandoned by pagan parents on the mountains of Rome, built hospitals in malaria-infested areas of Africa and Asia, built orphanages -- not the atheists.
Christians can be lured into sympathy with progressivism on the surface level of issues. Exploitation of the poor, crimes committed by business corporations, the plundering of the community by vested interests -- Christians can "amen" these concerns as well as anyone else, and should. But a shared concern does not a true brother make. The Christian and the Progressive might object to the same wrongs, but we do so coming from two diametrically opposed places. Our ideological paths might run parallel to each other at times, but we are not walking the same road together.
So, by being Christians, are we automatically conservatives?
I think that anyone who takes the Bible seriously can't avoid becoming an ethical conservative. We believe in a fixed, unchanging reference point of truth (God). We believe in a divinely inspired document (the Bible). Consequently we believe that some actions are always right, and some actions are always wrong. We don't always live up to our own ethics. In fact, we usually don't (which is why we need a Savior). But our private inconsistencies do not disprove the truths we profess to be true. According to Christianity, truth, reality, and ethics do not evolve. The thesis and the antithesis never combine. This makes us ethical conservatives.
Do we automatically have to be economic conservatives? I suggest that a Biblical Christian cannot support laissez-faire capitalism, mostly because of the doctrine of the fallenness of man, and the Biblical definition of the responsibilities of government. The government has been charged with the responsibility of overseeing justice, the principle of which clearly includes all manner of economic exchange. The libertarian wants to declare the economy off-limits to government (including drug exchanges). This is unbiblical.
The Christian doctrine of human sin prevents us from idealizing business or government. It is not true that Business is good while Government is evil. It is not true that Business is evil while Government is good. The human race is evil. Only the Gospel can redeem Business or Government. A consistent understanding of sin should keep us from a false dualistic view, in which one or the other is the Good Guy. However, the State can do much more harm than business, because the State controls armaments. So the State is more dangerous.
Christianity is also anti-slavery, but when does a condition of enslavement come into being? Is Socialism enslavement? All States depend on the power to coercively confiscate goods and services from its citizens, usually in the representative form of money. This is taxation, and Romans 13 recognizes the State's right to collect taxes and duties. But it matters if the State does so on the grounds that no such thing as private property exists. This is enslavement, even if it is self-imposed through the ballot box. The Bible assumes the existence of private property, by its commandments against theft.
I suggest that Christianity automatically does push us into a kind of conservatism, but it's a "conservatism" that is unlike secular conservatism. We do not attribute final authority to time-honored tradition, in the Burkean sense. Slavery was an ancient tradition, but we were right to radically overthrow it (Robert E. Lee considered himself a conservative).
A Christian conservative does not consider government a "necessary evil." God is the King, He runs a government, and he created Adam and Eve in a governmental relationship, first to Himself, then in relation to each other. Government is a not a product of the Fall, it has been corrupted by the Fall.
We do not lionize business, even though we recognize that democratic capitalism has accomplished far more than socialism to advance man's living standards, invent new technologies, and create practical opportunities to improve one's own lot in life. Democratic capitalism breaks the chains of feudalism, and harnesses the psychological principles of competition and self-interest (neither of which can be eradicated from the human mind) to create achievement. But business is as tainted by sin as government is, because we are all foolish sinners.
Capitalism allows more people to irretrievably crash and burn when they fail, in the furious race that is democratic capitalism. So a Christian ethic -- neighbor love -- also requires us to take measures to mitigate the practical consequences of reaching for the goal-line and falling short. Those measures can be both private (charitable organizations) and public (for times when massive mobilization is needed). We should also support the government in punishing businesses that pursue their goals by force or deceit, such as the United Fruit Company (which exploited South American nations for decades), or Enron.
As Christians who believe in the fallenness of man, we do not believe that a perfect society is possible, and as creationists we do not believe that society is being propelled forward toward Utopia by some inner, unseen, mystically evolutional force. Because of our eschatology, we look forward to the cataclysmic return of Jesus Christ from heaven, when all will be made well. So in that sense of a macro-historical perspective, we are not progressives.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What Romans 9 Doesn't Say
In Romans 1-8, Paul presented the Gospel of grace. But, in light of all that preceded, chapter 9 answers the question, "Has God failed to keep His promises to Israel?" What follows is his defense:
"Not all Israel is Israel" -- Being Jewish does not automatically make you a child of God. Isaac and Jacob are given as proofs of this principle. Being born of Abraham didn't even assure you of membership in the national people of God, let alone the spiritual people of God. Ishmael was just as much Abraham's son as Isaac, and he was circumcised as well, but he wasn't included in the national people of God. A bloodline connection to Abraham didn't ensure membership in God's national people. The same was true of Esau. Esau was just as much Isaac's son as Jacob, and he was circumcised as well, but God chose to favor Jacob by making him the first-born. God's favor on Jacob had nothing to do with Jacob's covenant faithfulness. Paul is rebutting the standard Jewish doctrine that salvation is not just from but also for the Jews only, and received by a melange of national membership in the people and covenant faithfulness (law-keeping). Isaac refutes the first leg of the doctrine (that salvation is accessed by membership in Israel), and Jacob refutes the second (that God's favor is merited by covenant faithfulness). Paul's point is that Esau had just as little right to receive God's blessing as Jacob did. The Jews weren't "special", and they didn't deserve grace.
"I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" -- In other words, God reminded Moses that His compassion is free. God can never be morally or covenantally obligated to show mercy to any sinner. The Jews had no more claim on God's compassionate mercy than any godless Gentile. God's compassion was never limited to the Jews, even during Old Covenant times. God's statement here doesn't say whether there are any conditions for receiving His mercy (e.g., faith, repentance). God never contracted His mercy to any group in particular, including the Jews. God is just as willing to be merciful to a Moabite, an Ammonite, or an Egyptian, as to a Jew.
"For this reason I raised you up" -- God is also as free to punish a sinner as to bless Him. Moses was a red-handed murderer, but God freely showed him mercy. God made elevated the Pharaoh to his position of royal power, in order to vent His holy punishments on him, and make an international example out of him. I want to point out that none of us know where Pharaoh's soul went after he died. Pharaoh didn't die in the Red Sea disaster. We don't know whether or not he ever repented and put his faith in Yahweh. Paul's point was not that Pharaoh was an unbeliever because God willed that he should be an unbeliever (which would be contrary to God's stated will that all men everywhere should repent, and that God is not the author of sin), or that Pharaoh died in unbelief. Paul is implying that God could just as easily punish Israel, as He punished Egypt. This idea would have been profoundly offensive to the pride of the Jews.
"It is not to him who runs, or him who wills" -- The favor of God cannot be obtained by pious inner exertions of the mind (such as taking a mental inventory of one's own sins), or rigorous outward acts of covenantal faithfulness (such as fasting, prayer, self-denial, taking the ordinances). We should note that, at the end of this chapter, Paul excludes the idea of "faith" from what he means by willing. At the end of chapter 9, Paul says that the Gentiles were becoming righteous by faith, while the Jews were failing to obtain righteousness because they were pursuing it by works. The "willing" is a legal willing, not evangelical belief.
"What shall we say, then?" -- Paul's bottom line comes at the end of the chapter. His conclusion is not that some are unconditionally elected, and some are reprobated. His conclusion is that Gentiles were attaining salvation-righteousness because they were receiving it by faith, and the Jews were failing to attain salvation-righteousness because they were pursuing it by works. This is the climax of Paul's reasoning throughout chapter 9, and needs to be read back into the chapter all the way through. In fact, Romans 11 further proves that Paul was not talking about election in chapter 9, since Paul promises that the natural Jewish olive branches now cut off from God by their unbelief can be re-grated if they repent and put their trust in Christ. The eternal fate of those same unbelieving Jews under consideration in chapter 9 was not yet permanently settled according to chapter 11.
Romans chapter 9 is not about unconditional election. It is a refutation of the widespread Jewish false doctrine of salvation by bloodline plus covenant faithfulness. God's mercy isn't obtained by descendancy, or rigorous acts of piety. God's mercy is given out freely, never as a wage owed. The dividing line Paul draws is not between election and reprobation, but between the assurance of attaining salvation by faith, versus the futility of seeking salvation by works. This has always been God's way. This was why the Gentiles were being saved, in spite of their Gentileness, and the Jews remained lost in spite of their Jewishness.
"Not all Israel is Israel" -- Being Jewish does not automatically make you a child of God. Isaac and Jacob are given as proofs of this principle. Being born of Abraham didn't even assure you of membership in the national people of God, let alone the spiritual people of God. Ishmael was just as much Abraham's son as Isaac, and he was circumcised as well, but he wasn't included in the national people of God. A bloodline connection to Abraham didn't ensure membership in God's national people. The same was true of Esau. Esau was just as much Isaac's son as Jacob, and he was circumcised as well, but God chose to favor Jacob by making him the first-born. God's favor on Jacob had nothing to do with Jacob's covenant faithfulness. Paul is rebutting the standard Jewish doctrine that salvation is not just from but also for the Jews only, and received by a melange of national membership in the people and covenant faithfulness (law-keeping). Isaac refutes the first leg of the doctrine (that salvation is accessed by membership in Israel), and Jacob refutes the second (that God's favor is merited by covenant faithfulness). Paul's point is that Esau had just as little right to receive God's blessing as Jacob did. The Jews weren't "special", and they didn't deserve grace.
"I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" -- In other words, God reminded Moses that His compassion is free. God can never be morally or covenantally obligated to show mercy to any sinner. The Jews had no more claim on God's compassionate mercy than any godless Gentile. God's compassion was never limited to the Jews, even during Old Covenant times. God's statement here doesn't say whether there are any conditions for receiving His mercy (e.g., faith, repentance). God never contracted His mercy to any group in particular, including the Jews. God is just as willing to be merciful to a Moabite, an Ammonite, or an Egyptian, as to a Jew.
"For this reason I raised you up" -- God is also as free to punish a sinner as to bless Him. Moses was a red-handed murderer, but God freely showed him mercy. God made elevated the Pharaoh to his position of royal power, in order to vent His holy punishments on him, and make an international example out of him. I want to point out that none of us know where Pharaoh's soul went after he died. Pharaoh didn't die in the Red Sea disaster. We don't know whether or not he ever repented and put his faith in Yahweh. Paul's point was not that Pharaoh was an unbeliever because God willed that he should be an unbeliever (which would be contrary to God's stated will that all men everywhere should repent, and that God is not the author of sin), or that Pharaoh died in unbelief. Paul is implying that God could just as easily punish Israel, as He punished Egypt. This idea would have been profoundly offensive to the pride of the Jews.
"It is not to him who runs, or him who wills" -- The favor of God cannot be obtained by pious inner exertions of the mind (such as taking a mental inventory of one's own sins), or rigorous outward acts of covenantal faithfulness (such as fasting, prayer, self-denial, taking the ordinances). We should note that, at the end of this chapter, Paul excludes the idea of "faith" from what he means by willing. At the end of chapter 9, Paul says that the Gentiles were becoming righteous by faith, while the Jews were failing to obtain righteousness because they were pursuing it by works. The "willing" is a legal willing, not evangelical belief.
"What shall we say, then?" -- Paul's bottom line comes at the end of the chapter. His conclusion is not that some are unconditionally elected, and some are reprobated. His conclusion is that Gentiles were attaining salvation-righteousness because they were receiving it by faith, and the Jews were failing to attain salvation-righteousness because they were pursuing it by works. This is the climax of Paul's reasoning throughout chapter 9, and needs to be read back into the chapter all the way through. In fact, Romans 11 further proves that Paul was not talking about election in chapter 9, since Paul promises that the natural Jewish olive branches now cut off from God by their unbelief can be re-grated if they repent and put their trust in Christ. The eternal fate of those same unbelieving Jews under consideration in chapter 9 was not yet permanently settled according to chapter 11.
Romans chapter 9 is not about unconditional election. It is a refutation of the widespread Jewish false doctrine of salvation by bloodline plus covenant faithfulness. God's mercy isn't obtained by descendancy, or rigorous acts of piety. God's mercy is given out freely, never as a wage owed. The dividing line Paul draws is not between election and reprobation, but between the assurance of attaining salvation by faith, versus the futility of seeking salvation by works. This has always been God's way. This was why the Gentiles were being saved, in spite of their Gentileness, and the Jews remained lost in spite of their Jewishness.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Lazarus - John 11
As I read through John 11 this morning, I thought...
Jesus knows how our stories ends -- which is why he isn't upset (4). A story concludes hen the dramatic tension climaxes, and resolution results. Only then do we see what the preceding story had been all about. Our story isn't finished until Christ raises His people. Christ said Lazarus' sickness was not for ("unto") death. To the mind of unbelief, death is the end, and it empties everything that came before it of all meaning. To the mind of faith, Christ's glory as Resurrector is the real pay-off. When Christ raises all of us in the resurrection, all the praise will go to him. Then will we see what all our stories were really all about.
Jesus didn't live in fear of dying (9). He compared the guidance of God to the light of day. As long as he walked in the guidance and fellowship of God, he knew no fear. If we walk in the guidance of God, we don't need to fear "the arrow that flies by day, or the pestilence that stalks by night."
Lazarus' suffering was for other people's strengthening (15). Jesus was glad that he wasn't there to save Lazarus? This sounds cold. But this is not cold, because he already knew what he was going to do. Jesus saw benefit in Lazarus' death, because his response to the death would lead to the disciples' faith. When something goes wrong, but you know that you have complete power to fix it up even better than it was before, doesn't that take the sting out of the situation? Would we be willing to suffer a great hardship, if God's coming into the situation to deal with it resulted in the salvation of someone else?
Thomas spoke his unbelief. (16) Thomas' statement was a blatant expression of unbelief. Jesus said he was going back to Bethany to wake Lazarus up. Thomas replied, No, we are all going to die. This was blatant sin on Thomas' part, and an insult to Christ. How often do we insult Christ by the words we say about the future? Thomas sinned in verse 16.
Martha spoke her faith. (21) Martha had confidence in Christ's identity, intentions, and abilities. She knew he would have healed Lazarus, if he had been there. She knew that anything he asked God to do, God would do. Why? Because she knew he was the Son of God (27). She believed in the future resurrection of the body, and in the immortality of the redeemed soul (25-26). Our bodies die, but we do not.
Jesus has the ability to be confident in God and sympathetic with us at the same time (32-36). Christ groaned with pain in his heart. He was upset, and wept. But not for Lazarus. Lazarus was in paradise with Abraham. No, Christ sympathized with the heartache of his friends and the people. It is not "faith" to be stoic and unmoved at a Christian funeral, and even less seemly to put on a hap-hap-happy face.
Jesus knows how our stories ends -- which is why he isn't upset (4). A story concludes hen the dramatic tension climaxes, and resolution results. Only then do we see what the preceding story had been all about. Our story isn't finished until Christ raises His people. Christ said Lazarus' sickness was not for ("unto") death. To the mind of unbelief, death is the end, and it empties everything that came before it of all meaning. To the mind of faith, Christ's glory as Resurrector is the real pay-off. When Christ raises all of us in the resurrection, all the praise will go to him. Then will we see what all our stories were really all about.
Jesus didn't live in fear of dying (9). He compared the guidance of God to the light of day. As long as he walked in the guidance and fellowship of God, he knew no fear. If we walk in the guidance of God, we don't need to fear "the arrow that flies by day, or the pestilence that stalks by night."
Lazarus' suffering was for other people's strengthening (15). Jesus was glad that he wasn't there to save Lazarus? This sounds cold. But this is not cold, because he already knew what he was going to do. Jesus saw benefit in Lazarus' death, because his response to the death would lead to the disciples' faith. When something goes wrong, but you know that you have complete power to fix it up even better than it was before, doesn't that take the sting out of the situation? Would we be willing to suffer a great hardship, if God's coming into the situation to deal with it resulted in the salvation of someone else?
Thomas spoke his unbelief. (16) Thomas' statement was a blatant expression of unbelief. Jesus said he was going back to Bethany to wake Lazarus up. Thomas replied, No, we are all going to die. This was blatant sin on Thomas' part, and an insult to Christ. How often do we insult Christ by the words we say about the future? Thomas sinned in verse 16.
Martha spoke her faith. (21) Martha had confidence in Christ's identity, intentions, and abilities. She knew he would have healed Lazarus, if he had been there. She knew that anything he asked God to do, God would do. Why? Because she knew he was the Son of God (27). She believed in the future resurrection of the body, and in the immortality of the redeemed soul (25-26). Our bodies die, but we do not.
Jesus has the ability to be confident in God and sympathetic with us at the same time (32-36). Christ groaned with pain in his heart. He was upset, and wept. But not for Lazarus. Lazarus was in paradise with Abraham. No, Christ sympathized with the heartache of his friends and the people. It is not "faith" to be stoic and unmoved at a Christian funeral, and even less seemly to put on a hap-hap-happy face.
Rick Warren
The subject of Rick Warren has popped up at church. Here's my personal opinion of the Warren phenomenon:
Warren is a Southern Baptist who keeps his denominational connection pretty much hidden because he doesn't want to turn off the Southern Californian marketplace. His on-paper doctrinal beliefs are basically identical to those of the EFCA. However, he is an evangelist trying to appeal to leftist Californians. He is definitely no theologian. His writings, and the thinking they express, are simple, pragmatic, and pop. This is important, so keep it in mind. He's no theologian. He's a ministry mechanic. So he's excessively focused around "whatever works", and from what I've read he shows little facility for handling theological issues.
In the past, all his messages began with the phrase "How to..." I don't know if he does that anymore, but that's still the spirit in which he does things. I've read "Purpose-Driven Life", "Purpose-Driven Church", a small book of his on the fruit of the Spirit, and listened to a CD-series of his on leadership principles. They're all "how-to" focused.
What I think about Rick Warren is that he has a chronic integrity problem that has been played out in public (which is why I'm saying this, since I'm not claiming to read his mind). I see him as a shape-shifter. He strongly disavows Robert Schuller, but accepts Robert Schuller endorsement one of his books and appears at church-growth conferences with schuller. He disavows secular psychology, but then uses it as a key source for fundamental ideas a great deal. He supported the anti-gay-marriage amendment in California (reluctantly), but then later publicly claimed he never did, even though everybody knew that he did. That particularly turned me off.
I see these actions as reflective of an integrity problem. Warren is so influenced by salesmanship precepts that he wants to avoid alienating potential customers. He even called himself "Reformed" in one interview I read, a self-description of which any knowledgeable student of theology would laugh. John Wesley was more Reformed than Rick Warren.
Warren's grasp of Scripture in his books comes across as very superficial. The Gospel barely makes an appearance in "Purpose-Driven Life", and when it does it is barely explained. He quotes individual verses from all over the Bible, often out of context, out of a myriad of translations, including slipshod non-Bibles like "The Message". He says that the Bible tells us everything we need, but then in real life relies on secular authorities like the late Peter Drucker, a business theory guru. This, in practice, elevates secular theory up to the same level of authority as the Bible, which reflects the influence of Fuller Theological Seminary on Warren (where he did his doctoral work).
So while he avows loyalty to the Bible, his approach to things is very much a pragmatic, Americanized mish-mosh of ideas that come from all over the place. His book on the Purpose-Driven Church, which I've read several times, deals only with what the church does, not with what the church is. Straight-out pragmatism. His CD on leadership skills, which I own and have listened to, features advice such as the importance of videotaping baptisms and then making sure to play them back in church at slow-mo, because that gives maximum emotional impact. As I say, pragmatic, and shallow.
Warren seems to approve of nearly everybody in the religious world, out of a desire to seem "positive" in the eyes of the marketplace, and a dread fear of being seen as a conservative. I doubt we would get any sort of critical discernment material, or apologetics critiques, coming from Rick Warren. Warren "blesses the names" of the most left-wing emergent-church leaders, such as Brian MacLaren and Rob Bell. But I don't see Warren's books reflecting critical evaluation of issues. or any sort of doctrinal discernment matters, so the ecumenicity shouldn't be surprising.
Is he emergent? In my opinion, Saddleback represents the kind of slick, over-marketed, corporatized, Big Box/McDonalds church that the emergent church movement abhors. I don't believe that Warren shares the emergent church's postmodern agnosticism toward the knowability of God or the Bible. I think Warren is willing to speak at conferences where emergent church leaders appear, but I think it's because he's invited, and by doing so he's advancing his own goals, whatever they may be for that appearance. So I don't think he's on-board with postmodern skepticism. But I would never trust Rick Warren as a guardian against error. I don't think he's the shown the spiritual gifts, or even the desire, to "do discernment". He's too loose in his teaching, and too focused on re-packaging Christianity so that it sells well to liberals.
Warren is a Southern Baptist who keeps his denominational connection pretty much hidden because he doesn't want to turn off the Southern Californian marketplace. His on-paper doctrinal beliefs are basically identical to those of the EFCA. However, he is an evangelist trying to appeal to leftist Californians. He is definitely no theologian. His writings, and the thinking they express, are simple, pragmatic, and pop. This is important, so keep it in mind. He's no theologian. He's a ministry mechanic. So he's excessively focused around "whatever works", and from what I've read he shows little facility for handling theological issues.
In the past, all his messages began with the phrase "How to..." I don't know if he does that anymore, but that's still the spirit in which he does things. I've read "Purpose-Driven Life", "Purpose-Driven Church", a small book of his on the fruit of the Spirit, and listened to a CD-series of his on leadership principles. They're all "how-to" focused.
What I think about Rick Warren is that he has a chronic integrity problem that has been played out in public (which is why I'm saying this, since I'm not claiming to read his mind). I see him as a shape-shifter. He strongly disavows Robert Schuller, but accepts Robert Schuller endorsement one of his books and appears at church-growth conferences with schuller. He disavows secular psychology, but then uses it as a key source for fundamental ideas a great deal. He supported the anti-gay-marriage amendment in California (reluctantly), but then later publicly claimed he never did, even though everybody knew that he did. That particularly turned me off.
I see these actions as reflective of an integrity problem. Warren is so influenced by salesmanship precepts that he wants to avoid alienating potential customers. He even called himself "Reformed" in one interview I read, a self-description of which any knowledgeable student of theology would laugh. John Wesley was more Reformed than Rick Warren.
Warren's grasp of Scripture in his books comes across as very superficial. The Gospel barely makes an appearance in "Purpose-Driven Life", and when it does it is barely explained. He quotes individual verses from all over the Bible, often out of context, out of a myriad of translations, including slipshod non-Bibles like "The Message". He says that the Bible tells us everything we need, but then in real life relies on secular authorities like the late Peter Drucker, a business theory guru. This, in practice, elevates secular theory up to the same level of authority as the Bible, which reflects the influence of Fuller Theological Seminary on Warren (where he did his doctoral work).
So while he avows loyalty to the Bible, his approach to things is very much a pragmatic, Americanized mish-mosh of ideas that come from all over the place. His book on the Purpose-Driven Church, which I've read several times, deals only with what the church does, not with what the church is. Straight-out pragmatism. His CD on leadership skills, which I own and have listened to, features advice such as the importance of videotaping baptisms and then making sure to play them back in church at slow-mo, because that gives maximum emotional impact. As I say, pragmatic, and shallow.
Warren seems to approve of nearly everybody in the religious world, out of a desire to seem "positive" in the eyes of the marketplace, and a dread fear of being seen as a conservative. I doubt we would get any sort of critical discernment material, or apologetics critiques, coming from Rick Warren. Warren "blesses the names" of the most left-wing emergent-church leaders, such as Brian MacLaren and Rob Bell. But I don't see Warren's books reflecting critical evaluation of issues. or any sort of doctrinal discernment matters, so the ecumenicity shouldn't be surprising.
Is he emergent? In my opinion, Saddleback represents the kind of slick, over-marketed, corporatized, Big Box/McDonalds church that the emergent church movement abhors. I don't believe that Warren shares the emergent church's postmodern agnosticism toward the knowability of God or the Bible. I think Warren is willing to speak at conferences where emergent church leaders appear, but I think it's because he's invited, and by doing so he's advancing his own goals, whatever they may be for that appearance. So I don't think he's on-board with postmodern skepticism. But I would never trust Rick Warren as a guardian against error. I don't think he's the shown the spiritual gifts, or even the desire, to "do discernment". He's too loose in his teaching, and too focused on re-packaging Christianity so that it sells well to liberals.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Silly Statements Against General Atonement
Just got done reading Jay Adams Nouthetic Institute blog post from September 24, 2009, about limited atonement. He repeats the same canards about general atonement I've heard a hundred times before, that have turned me off in the past. My reaction is...
General atonement is not impersonal! What a silly claim. It comes off to me as if Reformed theologians are groping after a sales pitch that will sell well to individualistic Americans. Once you say that God is all-knowing and personal, then He had each and every individual person in mind just as if no one existed but that one person.
Christ's death doesn't unilaterally save. The Reformed view on limited atonement is as if it would have been enough for the Passover lamb to be slain, to protect the Jews from the death angel (in the Exodus story). But it wasn't enough. They had to individually paint their doorposts and lintels with the blood. The snake-bit Israelites needed to look up at the bronze serpent, to be healed. It wasn't enough for the serpent to be lifted up. The worshiper at the tabernacle had to lay his hand on the lamb's head, to signify the personal (ceremonial) imputation of his guilt for sin. It wasn't enough for the lamb to be slain. None of the types and shadows of atonement depicted the cross as working unilaterally. If it does, then we would need to say that the sins of the unsaved elect are already propitiated, and the elect, even in their unbelieving state, are never under the wrath of God. This is a heretical teaching called "eternal justification." But Romans 3:25 says our sins are propitiated through faith. Until you haver trusted in Christ, your sins are not propitiated. [This is a key problem with limited atonement -- it's hyper-objectivity.]
Christ's death does make salvation "possible" for all, unless God is a liar. Why is God, being righteous, able to remain "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ"? Because Christ died for all. God cannot morally or ethically promise everyone the gift of forgiveness, without first establishing the basis of the offer, which is Christ's death. If Christ did not die for so-and-so, then God cannot offer that person forgiveness without lying in the process. The bronze serpent on the pole was available to all the sick Israelites, including any who, in bitter unbelief, wouldn't and didn't look at it. God made salvation from the snake venom possible for all. Someone might say that I'm quoting an Arminian argument. You'd be right. That's because the Arminian argument here is correct.
It's ridiculous to say that God "failed" if everyone for whom Christ died doesn't come to Christ. Failure can only be measure din terms of what one set out to do. Since God never said that Christ's death would save everyone without exception, then God can't be accused of "failure" in a general atonement teaching. God said that Christ's death saves everyone who trusts in it. God said that it would save His people, which it does.
I believe in general atonement because Bible verses teach it, and, on othe other side, the arguments made in favor of limited atonement are fraught with fallacies. Jay Adams should eschew these implausible, canned arguments. If limited atonement is true, then he doesn't know if Christ died for him, since (if limited atonement is true) then no one knows for whom Christ died. I choose the certainty that comes from faith in an objectively-knowable atonement, over the doubt, fear, and neurotic self-examing that limited atonement doctrine creates.
And I know God loves my children, and wants them to be saved, because Christ died for them.
General atonement is not impersonal! What a silly claim. It comes off to me as if Reformed theologians are groping after a sales pitch that will sell well to individualistic Americans. Once you say that God is all-knowing and personal, then He had each and every individual person in mind just as if no one existed but that one person.
Christ's death doesn't unilaterally save. The Reformed view on limited atonement is as if it would have been enough for the Passover lamb to be slain, to protect the Jews from the death angel (in the Exodus story). But it wasn't enough. They had to individually paint their doorposts and lintels with the blood. The snake-bit Israelites needed to look up at the bronze serpent, to be healed. It wasn't enough for the serpent to be lifted up. The worshiper at the tabernacle had to lay his hand on the lamb's head, to signify the personal (ceremonial) imputation of his guilt for sin. It wasn't enough for the lamb to be slain. None of the types and shadows of atonement depicted the cross as working unilaterally. If it does, then we would need to say that the sins of the unsaved elect are already propitiated, and the elect, even in their unbelieving state, are never under the wrath of God. This is a heretical teaching called "eternal justification." But Romans 3:25 says our sins are propitiated through faith. Until you haver trusted in Christ, your sins are not propitiated. [This is a key problem with limited atonement -- it's hyper-objectivity.]
Christ's death does make salvation "possible" for all, unless God is a liar. Why is God, being righteous, able to remain "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ"? Because Christ died for all. God cannot morally or ethically promise everyone the gift of forgiveness, without first establishing the basis of the offer, which is Christ's death. If Christ did not die for so-and-so, then God cannot offer that person forgiveness without lying in the process. The bronze serpent on the pole was available to all the sick Israelites, including any who, in bitter unbelief, wouldn't and didn't look at it. God made salvation from the snake venom possible for all. Someone might say that I'm quoting an Arminian argument. You'd be right. That's because the Arminian argument here is correct.
It's ridiculous to say that God "failed" if everyone for whom Christ died doesn't come to Christ. Failure can only be measure din terms of what one set out to do. Since God never said that Christ's death would save everyone without exception, then God can't be accused of "failure" in a general atonement teaching. God said that Christ's death saves everyone who trusts in it. God said that it would save His people, which it does.
I believe in general atonement because Bible verses teach it, and, on othe other side, the arguments made in favor of limited atonement are fraught with fallacies. Jay Adams should eschew these implausible, canned arguments. If limited atonement is true, then he doesn't know if Christ died for him, since (if limited atonement is true) then no one knows for whom Christ died. I choose the certainty that comes from faith in an objectively-knowable atonement, over the doubt, fear, and neurotic self-examing that limited atonement doctrine creates.
And I know God loves my children, and wants them to be saved, because Christ died for them.
Did God Promise To Save Our Children?
Whether you are Arminian or Calvinist, neither approach to Scripture yields up the conclusion that God ever promised to save (i.e., convert) our children. I think Arminian Christians understand this far better than Calvinists; and here is what I mean by that...
The Arminian, or somewhat-Arminian, Christian thinks about this question on the principle of free will. The more Biblically untrained Arminian believes in unlimited free will, which is clearly unscriptural, not to mention psychologically impossible (which was Jonathan Edwards' great point on the topic). Spiritually speaking, the Bible says that our minds are clouded and darkened by our own sinful hearts, and deceived by Satan the deceiver. The will can only operate inside the boundaries of these factors. The will is like a parakeet in a birdcage. Let's say that a birdcage was built that was as big as a house, say, like at the municipal zoo. Then the parakeet has a very large area around which to fly. But what if the birdcage is as small as a fishbowl? Then the parakeet would have a very small area around which to fly. The parakeet still is what it is. It's a flying bird, it has wings that work, and it can fly. But it's not free to fly outside the boundaries of the birdcage.
The children of Adam all have wills. We all make choices. But our choices are bounded around by numerous factors: our degree and accuracy of knowledge about any given subject, our prejudices, openness to correction, ability to reason, our philosophy of life, and visceral desires like hunger, thirst, fear, anger, and hope.
So, unlike the humanistic Arminian (who talks about "free will" as if the mind was a blank slate and as if there's barely anything wrong with the human soul), the more Biblically balanced Arminian would have a more realistic view of the human will. Even so, that Christian's view of the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's will leaves him with no question that his own child, or any Christian's child, could turn from the faith. They don't like this fact. No one does, of course. It's a grief to many a parent's heart that their child has followed the cursed ways of the world. There might be a few Christians here-or-there who have been taught that God promises to save everyone in your family, based on a misunderstanding of Paul's words to the Philippian jailer. But for the most part there is no expectation that God promised to convert the Christian's children.
The Reformed-Presbyterian Christian has a worse time of it. There is a doctrine called covenant successionism which, boiled down to its simple essence, says that God promised to convert the children of believers. It grows out covenant theology's core confusion between the Jews being the national children of God, versus a person becoming the individual child of God.
God's promise to the Jews that He would never break his covenant with them is re-affirmed by Paul in Romans 11:29. God has never revoked the Jews' national gifts or calling, even though individual Jews are severed from the Lord because of their unbelief toward Christ (Romans 11:17). God was the Jews' national God, and so He called them his people throughout the prophets even though the vast majority of them weren't saved people. The Lord's promise to be the Jews' God in a personal sense, and for them to be his people, only happens through faith in the Messiah. God becomes someone's God only when God writes his laws in their minds and hearts through the new birth (Hebrews 8:10). God's words, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people", was made to the Jews, not to Gentiles.
Secondly, it is manifest from the entire history of the Old Testament that God did not convert all the children of believing Jews, ever. It appears from the O.T. narrative that most Israelites died in unbelief. The situation got so bad in Elijah's day that he became convinced that he was the last believer left -- sort of an "Omega Man" moment. If we interpret God's "I will be your God" promise as expressing his national covenant with the Jews, then no contradictions arise. God was still the national God of the Jews, even when all of them walked in unbelief. But if we erroneously "spiritualize" the promise and turn it into a promise of individual, personal redemption, then what happens? We're forced to conclude that God either lied to the Jews, or was unable to keep his promise, neither of which is possible for God to commit. God, being righteous, can't lie, and God, being omnipotent, can't fail. But God's promise was a national, non-redemptive promise to the Jews, not a personal, saving promise to Christians or Jews.
Some Reformed Christians point to Acts 2:39 as a promise from God to convert our children, but this is built on the prior misinterpretation of Exodus 6:7. This misuse of Acts 2:39 requires the reader to prejudicially force covenant theology onto the text. The promise of which Peter speaks is that every one who receives Christ as Savior will have their sins remitted and be given the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38). God extended this promise to all Jews indiscriminately, to all their children, and to all Jews living in the far-flung regions of the empire. (At this stage of the game, Peter did not yet understand God's worldwide plan for all nations, so he spoke only to his fellow Jews).
Repentance is the pre-condition for baptism (Peter's rule nullifes infant baptism, since the condition for blessing and the benefits of the blessing are all linked, so even the children in view must also confess their sins and receive Christ), and this is the message of the Gospel. The Lord sends out his Gospel call to everyone without exception. Acts 2:39 has nothing at all to do with covenant successionism. Tos ay that it does is an extreme case of Scripture-twisting.
Lastly, the Presbyterian doctrine of unconditional election slashes across all family lines. Jacob was chosen, Esau was not. If covenant successionism is a true doctrine, then Esau and Ishmael should have been chosen, too.
God does promise to save our children. If they meet the condition, which according to Acts 2:39 is repentance toward (that is, turning from unbelief to faith in) Jesus Christ. If our children meet the condition, then they will receive the blessing. If they will not, then they do not. But God never promised that He would convert all the children of all believers.
The Arminian, or somewhat-Arminian, Christian thinks about this question on the principle of free will. The more Biblically untrained Arminian believes in unlimited free will, which is clearly unscriptural, not to mention psychologically impossible (which was Jonathan Edwards' great point on the topic). Spiritually speaking, the Bible says that our minds are clouded and darkened by our own sinful hearts, and deceived by Satan the deceiver. The will can only operate inside the boundaries of these factors. The will is like a parakeet in a birdcage. Let's say that a birdcage was built that was as big as a house, say, like at the municipal zoo. Then the parakeet has a very large area around which to fly. But what if the birdcage is as small as a fishbowl? Then the parakeet would have a very small area around which to fly. The parakeet still is what it is. It's a flying bird, it has wings that work, and it can fly. But it's not free to fly outside the boundaries of the birdcage.
The children of Adam all have wills. We all make choices. But our choices are bounded around by numerous factors: our degree and accuracy of knowledge about any given subject, our prejudices, openness to correction, ability to reason, our philosophy of life, and visceral desires like hunger, thirst, fear, anger, and hope.
So, unlike the humanistic Arminian (who talks about "free will" as if the mind was a blank slate and as if there's barely anything wrong with the human soul), the more Biblically balanced Arminian would have a more realistic view of the human will. Even so, that Christian's view of the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's will leaves him with no question that his own child, or any Christian's child, could turn from the faith. They don't like this fact. No one does, of course. It's a grief to many a parent's heart that their child has followed the cursed ways of the world. There might be a few Christians here-or-there who have been taught that God promises to save everyone in your family, based on a misunderstanding of Paul's words to the Philippian jailer. But for the most part there is no expectation that God promised to convert the Christian's children.
The Reformed-Presbyterian Christian has a worse time of it. There is a doctrine called covenant successionism which, boiled down to its simple essence, says that God promised to convert the children of believers. It grows out covenant theology's core confusion between the Jews being the national children of God, versus a person becoming the individual child of God.
God's promise to the Jews that He would never break his covenant with them is re-affirmed by Paul in Romans 11:29. God has never revoked the Jews' national gifts or calling, even though individual Jews are severed from the Lord because of their unbelief toward Christ (Romans 11:17). God was the Jews' national God, and so He called them his people throughout the prophets even though the vast majority of them weren't saved people. The Lord's promise to be the Jews' God in a personal sense, and for them to be his people, only happens through faith in the Messiah. God becomes someone's God only when God writes his laws in their minds and hearts through the new birth (Hebrews 8:10). God's words, "I will be their God, and they shall be My people", was made to the Jews, not to Gentiles.
Secondly, it is manifest from the entire history of the Old Testament that God did not convert all the children of believing Jews, ever. It appears from the O.T. narrative that most Israelites died in unbelief. The situation got so bad in Elijah's day that he became convinced that he was the last believer left -- sort of an "Omega Man" moment. If we interpret God's "I will be your God" promise as expressing his national covenant with the Jews, then no contradictions arise. God was still the national God of the Jews, even when all of them walked in unbelief. But if we erroneously "spiritualize" the promise and turn it into a promise of individual, personal redemption, then what happens? We're forced to conclude that God either lied to the Jews, or was unable to keep his promise, neither of which is possible for God to commit. God, being righteous, can't lie, and God, being omnipotent, can't fail. But God's promise was a national, non-redemptive promise to the Jews, not a personal, saving promise to Christians or Jews.
Some Reformed Christians point to Acts 2:39 as a promise from God to convert our children, but this is built on the prior misinterpretation of Exodus 6:7. This misuse of Acts 2:39 requires the reader to prejudicially force covenant theology onto the text. The promise of which Peter speaks is that every one who receives Christ as Savior will have their sins remitted and be given the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38). God extended this promise to all Jews indiscriminately, to all their children, and to all Jews living in the far-flung regions of the empire. (At this stage of the game, Peter did not yet understand God's worldwide plan for all nations, so he spoke only to his fellow Jews).
Repentance is the pre-condition for baptism (Peter's rule nullifes infant baptism, since the condition for blessing and the benefits of the blessing are all linked, so even the children in view must also confess their sins and receive Christ), and this is the message of the Gospel. The Lord sends out his Gospel call to everyone without exception. Acts 2:39 has nothing at all to do with covenant successionism. Tos ay that it does is an extreme case of Scripture-twisting.
Lastly, the Presbyterian doctrine of unconditional election slashes across all family lines. Jacob was chosen, Esau was not. If covenant successionism is a true doctrine, then Esau and Ishmael should have been chosen, too.
God does promise to save our children. If they meet the condition, which according to Acts 2:39 is repentance toward (that is, turning from unbelief to faith in) Jesus Christ. If our children meet the condition, then they will receive the blessing. If they will not, then they do not. But God never promised that He would convert all the children of all believers.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
The Sabbath
Moses' Law is an indivisible unit. Its sections can be outlined -- civil, priestly, and so forth -- but they aren't separate interlocking pieces like Legos. I think it's significant that it's always called the Law (singular).
Paul assumes this in Galatians 5. His point there is "In for a penny, in for a pound". If you undergo circumcision, then you're all in. You'd better keep every last jot and tittle, because you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Law you keep, like it's a Chinese buffet. The same principle applies to Sabbath. If you have to keep the Fourth Commandment, even if you dress it up in Christian clothing, then you have to keep all the rest of the 630-odd commandments as well. Circumcision and Sabbath were both covenantal signs. You could be executed or banished for failing to keep either.
Paul in 1st Corinthians 9 says that he is not under Moses' Law, but is under Christ's law. So when he adapted to Jewish tradition as part of his evangelistic work, he never forgot that he was not subject to Moses' Law. He was merely adapting culturally in order to remove possible offense. When he adapted to Gentile customs (which someone under Moses Law would never be free to do), he never forgot that he was still accountable to Christ's law.
I believe that Christ's law is comprised of all commandments given to the church in the New Testament, whether coming from the Gospels or the Epistles. The Epistles work as a sieve through which we run the Old Covenant material, or a lens through which we look at it. The apostles tell us which portions of the Old Testament law carry over and are fitted into the New Covenant framework. But whenever that happens, they aren't Old Covenant laws anymore, because the covenantal foundation is so different.
The New Testament assumes that the people to whom its commandments are directed are all regenerate, justified, and inheritors of eternal life. The Old Covenant never takes that stance. The historical bases of the Old Covenant law are Creation and the Exodus. So the self-revelation of God put forward in the Law is that of Creator and Covenant-King of the nation. The New Covenant is founded in the shed blood of the Savior, according to Jesus' re-definition of the Passover meal. The Old Covenant prophesied the future coming of an atoning substitute, in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that God would undo sin's curse with the counteractive blessing. But God is Creator and King in the Old Covenant law, not savior from sin.
Regarding the Fourth Commandment:
1. It was never a creation ordinance, since the word "ordinance" means that a law has been given. There is no record in Genesis that a sabbath law was ever uttered by God to men. The hallowing of the seventh day was performed by God. Where is there any data that shows God giving special revelation to human beings about when to worship Him? Evidently they did worship Him: Cain and Abel brought God offerings, and the sons of Seth began to call upon the name of the Lord. But the testimony of Genesis is extraordinarily skimpy about the liturgical practices of the patriarchs. There are no examples in Genesis of anyone worshiping on the seventh day, or of God punishing anyone for not worshiping on the seventh day. John Bunyan, British Puritan preacher, correctly pointed out in one of his books that every other sin of the decalogue is found somewhere in Genesis; but not sabbath-breaking.
2. The rationale for the Sabbath given to Israel was always their national rescue from Egyptian bondage. The same God who rested on the seventh day was also the one true God, in contrast to the worthless Egyptian deities. He gave them rest from their lives of misery by saving them from their slavemasters. But we aren't Jews, and none of us were redeemed from Egypt. The historical basis for the Fourth Commandment doesn't apply to anyone but Jews. In the Old Testament, Gentiles were expected to respect it (e.g., Jerusalem's gates were supposed to stay closed to commerce during the sabbath, and Nehemiah shooed pesky merchants away from hanging around the walls), but they weren't expected to keep it. When you read Amos, God judges the surrounding nations for a host of moral outrages. But never does God judge a Gentile, or a Gentile nation, for not keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath was exclusively for the Jews, and signified their national deliverance from Egypt. We're not Jews, and God didn't nationally deliver us from Egypt
3. Colossians 2 is clear that none of the sabbaths (plural) apply to us. There was more than one sabbath. Romans 14 is clear that we can keep the Sabbath if we want to, just as we could have refrained from eating meats offered up to idols in the temple meat-markets, if we want to. But the criteria is now "if we want to."
4. The adventist teaching (meaning, Ellen G. White) that we will undergo investigatory judgment as to our fitness for everlasting life based on whether we kept the Fourth Commandment, is heretical. It falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8-9. Salvation has always been a free gift received by faith alone, going back to Adam and Eve.
Paul assumes this in Galatians 5. His point there is "In for a penny, in for a pound". If you undergo circumcision, then you're all in. You'd better keep every last jot and tittle, because you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Law you keep, like it's a Chinese buffet. The same principle applies to Sabbath. If you have to keep the Fourth Commandment, even if you dress it up in Christian clothing, then you have to keep all the rest of the 630-odd commandments as well. Circumcision and Sabbath were both covenantal signs. You could be executed or banished for failing to keep either.
Paul in 1st Corinthians 9 says that he is not under Moses' Law, but is under Christ's law. So when he adapted to Jewish tradition as part of his evangelistic work, he never forgot that he was not subject to Moses' Law. He was merely adapting culturally in order to remove possible offense. When he adapted to Gentile customs (which someone under Moses Law would never be free to do), he never forgot that he was still accountable to Christ's law.
I believe that Christ's law is comprised of all commandments given to the church in the New Testament, whether coming from the Gospels or the Epistles. The Epistles work as a sieve through which we run the Old Covenant material, or a lens through which we look at it. The apostles tell us which portions of the Old Testament law carry over and are fitted into the New Covenant framework. But whenever that happens, they aren't Old Covenant laws anymore, because the covenantal foundation is so different.
The New Testament assumes that the people to whom its commandments are directed are all regenerate, justified, and inheritors of eternal life. The Old Covenant never takes that stance. The historical bases of the Old Covenant law are Creation and the Exodus. So the self-revelation of God put forward in the Law is that of Creator and Covenant-King of the nation. The New Covenant is founded in the shed blood of the Savior, according to Jesus' re-definition of the Passover meal. The Old Covenant prophesied the future coming of an atoning substitute, in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that God would undo sin's curse with the counteractive blessing. But God is Creator and King in the Old Covenant law, not savior from sin.
Regarding the Fourth Commandment:
1. It was never a creation ordinance, since the word "ordinance" means that a law has been given. There is no record in Genesis that a sabbath law was ever uttered by God to men. The hallowing of the seventh day was performed by God. Where is there any data that shows God giving special revelation to human beings about when to worship Him? Evidently they did worship Him: Cain and Abel brought God offerings, and the sons of Seth began to call upon the name of the Lord. But the testimony of Genesis is extraordinarily skimpy about the liturgical practices of the patriarchs. There are no examples in Genesis of anyone worshiping on the seventh day, or of God punishing anyone for not worshiping on the seventh day. John Bunyan, British Puritan preacher, correctly pointed out in one of his books that every other sin of the decalogue is found somewhere in Genesis; but not sabbath-breaking.
2. The rationale for the Sabbath given to Israel was always their national rescue from Egyptian bondage. The same God who rested on the seventh day was also the one true God, in contrast to the worthless Egyptian deities. He gave them rest from their lives of misery by saving them from their slavemasters. But we aren't Jews, and none of us were redeemed from Egypt. The historical basis for the Fourth Commandment doesn't apply to anyone but Jews. In the Old Testament, Gentiles were expected to respect it (e.g., Jerusalem's gates were supposed to stay closed to commerce during the sabbath, and Nehemiah shooed pesky merchants away from hanging around the walls), but they weren't expected to keep it. When you read Amos, God judges the surrounding nations for a host of moral outrages. But never does God judge a Gentile, or a Gentile nation, for not keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath was exclusively for the Jews, and signified their national deliverance from Egypt. We're not Jews, and God didn't nationally deliver us from Egypt
3. Colossians 2 is clear that none of the sabbaths (plural) apply to us. There was more than one sabbath. Romans 14 is clear that we can keep the Sabbath if we want to, just as we could have refrained from eating meats offered up to idols in the temple meat-markets, if we want to. But the criteria is now "if we want to."
4. The adventist teaching (meaning, Ellen G. White) that we will undergo investigatory judgment as to our fitness for everlasting life based on whether we kept the Fourth Commandment, is heretical. It falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8-9. Salvation has always been a free gift received by faith alone, going back to Adam and Eve.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Church Growth II: What Is Better?
The seven rules of church growth I listed in a previous note are not really Biblical principles. They're how you can get people to shop at your store. As for me:
The purpose of the local church. The purpose of the church is to worship Jesus Christ. Evangelism is one of the chief ways we do that. To fail to evangelize is to fail to worship the God who sent His Son into the world so that sinners could be reclaimed and so worship him again. But to make evangelism the purpose of the local church is humanistic, and distorts the church.
What's the purpose of the Sunday meeting? The Lord dictates that the Sunday meeting should be aimed at God (worship,) and the Christian flock (edification & encouragement). The Gospel should be integrated throughout the teachings, and presented so clearly that a visitor could benefit and become a child of God, but the visitor isn't the service target. But faithfulness to the Bible forbids turning the Sunday meeting into an ongoing tent revival.
What place social research? Scripture lays out what a worship meeting should include. There are timeless principles from the Old Testament, and patterns lined out in the New, especially in the books of 1st Corinthians, and the Pastoral epistles. But there's room for adjustments to local preferences. But it comes in that order: Scripture first, then local tastes and desires.
What should be our Sunday meeting values? "Welcoming" is Biblical. But "positive and up-beat" is too narrow. Is there no place for seriousness of contemplation? God is majestic, and ought to inspire reverence. There are times when people are sad, and that sadness needs to be ministered to. There are times when serious group sin needs correcting. "Maintain interest and attention" should be the preferred phrase over "entertaining". It's wrong to be boring. I think we need to aim at the middle maturity level of a group, not at the lowest level.
Use of secular principles and practices, especially business and counseling theory. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Scripture equips us to develop as Christian people, and it's all we need to teach us how to manage the work of the church. The Scripture also distinguishes between the principles of how to do these things, and various technical areas of knowledge. The fact that the Scripture doesn't teach how to screw in a light bulb doesn't mean that the Scripture doesn't speak to why we screw in a light bulb; nor should we listen to the uninspired philosophical musings of light-bulb makers. Business practices (such as how to do a spread-sheet or run an effective congregational meeting) is different from business philosophy, just as medicine is different from secular counseling philosophy. Again, the issue here has to do the order of priority in which one approaches a need. Scripture first, then technical expertise. But can the leader be trusted to lead the flock in accordance with God's Word, or will he hollow out the Bible with pragmatism? The weaker a knowledge of Scripture a leader has, the more he will default to secular thinking.
What's the right role for practicality? "Is it Biblical?" is the bottom-line criteria for decision making. What the world says works isn't always permitted by God. God struck Uzzah dead for touching the ark, even though his intetnions were good, and him touching the ark kept it from falling to the ground. God struck Uzziah with leprosy, because he broke one of his liturgical rules (kings don't intrude on the work of the priests). If God says we must do something a certain wya, then we must do it that way; the bottom line is that obedience to God is what works. However, a rigorous desire for results is necessary to be a competent leader. In fact, if you don't care about results, you aren't a leader.
How to treat visitors? People don't want anonymity, so much as they want not to be pestered. Just don't pester people. But others do want to sign up for notifications of upcoming events, and that sort of thing. They should be given the opportunity to do that, but it should be left up to them. Most people don't want visitation teams just popping up at their door, but that isn't true everywhere. We should not run our church so that people who know a bit more than "Jesus loves me, this I know" are forced to attend some other church on Sunday to avoid starvation. It's wrong to construct the Sunday meeting in such a way that a committed Christian derive sno benefit from attending. Altar calls are not taught in the scripture, but calling people to faith surely is. Jesus himself did not observe this rule of not exhorting people to trust him right away. He provided more than sufficient information, then called them to himself. "Excellence" is a slippery term. It's limited by our financial and educational resources. It can also be a temptation to naturalistic pride. God deliberately pared Gideon's army down to 300, because he didn't want them patting themselves on the back for the victory. God doesn't seem interested in saving excellent people, either.
The purpose of the local church. The purpose of the church is to worship Jesus Christ. Evangelism is one of the chief ways we do that. To fail to evangelize is to fail to worship the God who sent His Son into the world so that sinners could be reclaimed and so worship him again. But to make evangelism the purpose of the local church is humanistic, and distorts the church.
What's the purpose of the Sunday meeting? The Lord dictates that the Sunday meeting should be aimed at God (worship,) and the Christian flock (edification & encouragement). The Gospel should be integrated throughout the teachings, and presented so clearly that a visitor could benefit and become a child of God, but the visitor isn't the service target. But faithfulness to the Bible forbids turning the Sunday meeting into an ongoing tent revival.
What place social research? Scripture lays out what a worship meeting should include. There are timeless principles from the Old Testament, and patterns lined out in the New, especially in the books of 1st Corinthians, and the Pastoral epistles. But there's room for adjustments to local preferences. But it comes in that order: Scripture first, then local tastes and desires.
What should be our Sunday meeting values? "Welcoming" is Biblical. But "positive and up-beat" is too narrow. Is there no place for seriousness of contemplation? God is majestic, and ought to inspire reverence. There are times when people are sad, and that sadness needs to be ministered to. There are times when serious group sin needs correcting. "Maintain interest and attention" should be the preferred phrase over "entertaining". It's wrong to be boring. I think we need to aim at the middle maturity level of a group, not at the lowest level.
Use of secular principles and practices, especially business and counseling theory. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Scripture equips us to develop as Christian people, and it's all we need to teach us how to manage the work of the church. The Scripture also distinguishes between the principles of how to do these things, and various technical areas of knowledge. The fact that the Scripture doesn't teach how to screw in a light bulb doesn't mean that the Scripture doesn't speak to why we screw in a light bulb; nor should we listen to the uninspired philosophical musings of light-bulb makers. Business practices (such as how to do a spread-sheet or run an effective congregational meeting) is different from business philosophy, just as medicine is different from secular counseling philosophy. Again, the issue here has to do the order of priority in which one approaches a need. Scripture first, then technical expertise. But can the leader be trusted to lead the flock in accordance with God's Word, or will he hollow out the Bible with pragmatism? The weaker a knowledge of Scripture a leader has, the more he will default to secular thinking.
What's the right role for practicality? "Is it Biblical?" is the bottom-line criteria for decision making. What the world says works isn't always permitted by God. God struck Uzzah dead for touching the ark, even though his intetnions were good, and him touching the ark kept it from falling to the ground. God struck Uzziah with leprosy, because he broke one of his liturgical rules (kings don't intrude on the work of the priests). If God says we must do something a certain wya, then we must do it that way; the bottom line is that obedience to God is what works. However, a rigorous desire for results is necessary to be a competent leader. In fact, if you don't care about results, you aren't a leader.
How to treat visitors? People don't want anonymity, so much as they want not to be pestered. Just don't pester people. But others do want to sign up for notifications of upcoming events, and that sort of thing. They should be given the opportunity to do that, but it should be left up to them. Most people don't want visitation teams just popping up at their door, but that isn't true everywhere. We should not run our church so that people who know a bit more than "Jesus loves me, this I know" are forced to attend some other church on Sunday to avoid starvation. It's wrong to construct the Sunday meeting in such a way that a committed Christian derive sno benefit from attending. Altar calls are not taught in the scripture, but calling people to faith surely is. Jesus himself did not observe this rule of not exhorting people to trust him right away. He provided more than sufficient information, then called them to himself. "Excellence" is a slippery term. It's limited by our financial and educational resources. It can also be a temptation to naturalistic pride. God deliberately pared Gideon's army down to 300, because he didn't want them patting themselves on the back for the victory. God doesn't seem interested in saving excellent people, either.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Children Walking Away From The Faith
It's been reported that the children of Christians are walking away from the faith in record numbers. Answers in Genesis had an article on this last month, and one of my links (That Mom) talks about it this month as well. I don't know how statistics such as this are compiled, so I wonder how many of those sampled would we consider to be full-fledged Protestant evangelicals.
So that is where I would begin to look: the polling categories themselves. The word "evangelical" has become so broad, loose and near-meaningless now, that it raises into question polling data that's based on self-identified "evangelicals." If it turns out that there's a huge swath of nominalism, then it would require us to re-think the information gathered.
But let's grant that the polling is accurate. If the children of Christians are abandoning Christianity at record rates, what would I want to look at further?
A. The high divorce rate among evangelicals. Somewhere in Malachi, God said that the reason he wanted His people to honor their marriage vows was because He was seeking a godly seed. The high divorce rate among American evangelicals is an indicator of our level of rebellion against God, our self-serving immaturity, and in many situations our men's slavery to lust. Christian parents who divorce shake not just their childrens' emotions to the core, but their budding faith as well.
B. The anti-doctrine/anti-intellectual mentality among American evangelicals. We have wasted decades now, feeding our own people a lot of shallow pop theology, charismania doctrines, and self-esteem psychology. Christians like that are clawless and toothless when it comes to dealing with the world. Then that sort of Christian family sends their ill-formed child out into that militantly anti-Christian world, and of course the child converts over to Philistinism. The tepid mish-mosh of morality and sentimentality, with its sugar glaze of music, we feed our kids in Sunday school is no match for all the fierce propaganda that's out in society today, especially at state college.
C. We do very little to shield our children from worldly influences when they're young, compared to our believing grandparents. We ridicule the old conservatives, and imagine ourselves much more enlightened. There are many areas where the Lord has freed us from unnecessarily restrictive rules. But instead we seem to think American society's pop cultural influence is benign. We subscribe to cable TV and watch nasty things we wouldn't have countenanced even in the 1970s, we don't turn off top-40 music when it's on the car radio, in short, we saturate our families with negative, atheistic/agnostic entertainment media, and so soften up our children's thinking. We think entertainment is worldview neutral, which is naive.
Just some thoughts on an early Sunday morning.
So that is where I would begin to look: the polling categories themselves. The word "evangelical" has become so broad, loose and near-meaningless now, that it raises into question polling data that's based on self-identified "evangelicals." If it turns out that there's a huge swath of nominalism, then it would require us to re-think the information gathered.
But let's grant that the polling is accurate. If the children of Christians are abandoning Christianity at record rates, what would I want to look at further?
A. The high divorce rate among evangelicals. Somewhere in Malachi, God said that the reason he wanted His people to honor their marriage vows was because He was seeking a godly seed. The high divorce rate among American evangelicals is an indicator of our level of rebellion against God, our self-serving immaturity, and in many situations our men's slavery to lust. Christian parents who divorce shake not just their childrens' emotions to the core, but their budding faith as well.
B. The anti-doctrine/anti-intellectual mentality among American evangelicals. We have wasted decades now, feeding our own people a lot of shallow pop theology, charismania doctrines, and self-esteem psychology. Christians like that are clawless and toothless when it comes to dealing with the world. Then that sort of Christian family sends their ill-formed child out into that militantly anti-Christian world, and of course the child converts over to Philistinism. The tepid mish-mosh of morality and sentimentality, with its sugar glaze of music, we feed our kids in Sunday school is no match for all the fierce propaganda that's out in society today, especially at state college.
C. We do very little to shield our children from worldly influences when they're young, compared to our believing grandparents. We ridicule the old conservatives, and imagine ourselves much more enlightened. There are many areas where the Lord has freed us from unnecessarily restrictive rules. But instead we seem to think American society's pop cultural influence is benign. We subscribe to cable TV and watch nasty things we wouldn't have countenanced even in the 1970s, we don't turn off top-40 music when it's on the car radio, in short, we saturate our families with negative, atheistic/agnostic entertainment media, and so soften up our children's thinking. We think entertainment is worldview neutral, which is naive.
Just some thoughts on an early Sunday morning.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Church Growth Principles: Do You Agree?
How many of the following principles do you agree should control the way that we evangelical Christians go about making new followers of Jesus Christ?
1. The purpose of the local church is evangelism.
2. The Sunday morning church service should be exclusively devoted to non-believers.
3. The service should be constructed on the basis of social research. This approach should run through every aspect of the church's ministry, but especially be applied to the Sunday service.
4. The service has to conform to four standards. It has to feature a welcoming atmosphere. The message has to be non-threatening, positive, and up-beat. The service must be entertaining. The service must be aimed at an introductory level at all times.
5. Secular business ans counseling philosophy has to form a substantial amount of the church's guiding principles. The attendee should be defined as a customer, and the community is the market, and the church's actions shall all be taken accordingly. Counseling is founded on a combination of Bible and self-esteem theory. Business philosophy directs how the church board will conduct the various ministries.
6. "Does it work?" is the bottom-line criteria for decision making, within reason.
7. The attendee should experience the following four things. Attending church should be an anonymous experience -- no one connected with the church should take an attendee's name, phone number, or any other contact information of that sort. They should not be asked to stand up, identify themselves as a visitor, receive a special sticker, etc. It should be an entry-level experience. The attendee shouldn't need to know anything about the Bible, to understand the message. The attendee should not be challenged to accept Christ immediately. Coming to Christ is a learning process that takes time. The attendee should experience excellence in programming. What the church does must be the best.
What do you think of these seven principles?
1. The purpose of the local church is evangelism.
2. The Sunday morning church service should be exclusively devoted to non-believers.
3. The service should be constructed on the basis of social research. This approach should run through every aspect of the church's ministry, but especially be applied to the Sunday service.
4. The service has to conform to four standards. It has to feature a welcoming atmosphere. The message has to be non-threatening, positive, and up-beat. The service must be entertaining. The service must be aimed at an introductory level at all times.
5. Secular business ans counseling philosophy has to form a substantial amount of the church's guiding principles. The attendee should be defined as a customer, and the community is the market, and the church's actions shall all be taken accordingly. Counseling is founded on a combination of Bible and self-esteem theory. Business philosophy directs how the church board will conduct the various ministries.
6. "Does it work?" is the bottom-line criteria for decision making, within reason.
7. The attendee should experience the following four things. Attending church should be an anonymous experience -- no one connected with the church should take an attendee's name, phone number, or any other contact information of that sort. They should not be asked to stand up, identify themselves as a visitor, receive a special sticker, etc. It should be an entry-level experience. The attendee shouldn't need to know anything about the Bible, to understand the message. The attendee should not be challenged to accept Christ immediately. Coming to Christ is a learning process that takes time. The attendee should experience excellence in programming. What the church does must be the best.
What do you think of these seven principles?
The Potty Pulpit
Someone at our church told me he heard a local pastor preach a radio sermon about sex, in which he explicitly talked about a number of acts, and used some harsh lingo, that I won't repeat. The reason I won't repeat the phrases is the whole point of this column.
It seems to me, regarding how to speak about sex, that the Bible alternates between tasteful metaphorical language, and plain, unadorned language that just says what it says without humor or shock value. For instance, Moses doesn't say that Adam had intercourse with Eve, but instead Moses says that Adam "knew" her (Genesis 4:1). It's a euphenism, but one that also takes on deeper meaning later in the Bible, particularly in Ephesians 5:30-32. Leviticus 18 is similarly metaphorical -- Moses lists all the people one is forbidden to "uncover the nakedness of". It doesn't go into any more detail than that, yet it makes its point perfectly clear. It doesn't joke around, or nudge you with its elbow.
Song of Solomon is almost completely metaphorical. It poetically describes the passionate romance between the Shepherdess and Solomon. I dislike the modern tendency in certain circles to turn SoS into sanctified pornography. There is far too much love and respect from Solomon for his lady, for it to be considered pornographic. It's also too inexplicit.
(By the way: SoS is not an excuse to porn up our teaching about sex. "I just made a hilariously crude joke about sex, and don't you prudes criticize me, because, you know, Song of Solomon, heh-heh-heh!")
In Ephesians 5:12, Paul said that it was shameful even to speak of those things which are done by the children of darkness in secret. What did he mean? The Bible does speak of sexual sins, especially in the Old Testament law. Bestiality, incest, rape, they're all mentioned. Paul himself condemned adultery, fornication, uncleanness, and lewdness (Galatians 5:19). But these sins are not "discussed." The Bible doesn't sit around over coffee, casually chatting about such shameful things, or make jokes about them. The Word of God doesn't dissect these sins in depth, and it doesn't treat them humorously. In fact, it was because of these sex sins that God sent the Israelites into Canaan, and empowered the Jews to turn the Canaanites into piles of dead people. Nothing very funny about that.
We preachers should not use harsh language, street slang, or crude talk, when teaching about sex. Going into detail from the pulpit about physically unnatural acts throws a mental snare at the feet of the people. Talking that way doesn't make you cool. It means you're immature and undiscerning. Not to mention that no parent, driving their child to school at 7:30 in the morning, wants to hear this sort of crude talk coming over their Christian radio. We should use the same approach to talking about sexual things that the Bible uses.
It seems to me, regarding how to speak about sex, that the Bible alternates between tasteful metaphorical language, and plain, unadorned language that just says what it says without humor or shock value. For instance, Moses doesn't say that Adam had intercourse with Eve, but instead Moses says that Adam "knew" her (Genesis 4:1). It's a euphenism, but one that also takes on deeper meaning later in the Bible, particularly in Ephesians 5:30-32. Leviticus 18 is similarly metaphorical -- Moses lists all the people one is forbidden to "uncover the nakedness of". It doesn't go into any more detail than that, yet it makes its point perfectly clear. It doesn't joke around, or nudge you with its elbow.
Song of Solomon is almost completely metaphorical. It poetically describes the passionate romance between the Shepherdess and Solomon. I dislike the modern tendency in certain circles to turn SoS into sanctified pornography. There is far too much love and respect from Solomon for his lady, for it to be considered pornographic. It's also too inexplicit.
(By the way: SoS is not an excuse to porn up our teaching about sex. "I just made a hilariously crude joke about sex, and don't you prudes criticize me, because, you know, Song of Solomon, heh-heh-heh!")
In Ephesians 5:12, Paul said that it was shameful even to speak of those things which are done by the children of darkness in secret. What did he mean? The Bible does speak of sexual sins, especially in the Old Testament law. Bestiality, incest, rape, they're all mentioned. Paul himself condemned adultery, fornication, uncleanness, and lewdness (Galatians 5:19). But these sins are not "discussed." The Bible doesn't sit around over coffee, casually chatting about such shameful things, or make jokes about them. The Word of God doesn't dissect these sins in depth, and it doesn't treat them humorously. In fact, it was because of these sex sins that God sent the Israelites into Canaan, and empowered the Jews to turn the Canaanites into piles of dead people. Nothing very funny about that.
We preachers should not use harsh language, street slang, or crude talk, when teaching about sex. Going into detail from the pulpit about physically unnatural acts throws a mental snare at the feet of the people. Talking that way doesn't make you cool. It means you're immature and undiscerning. Not to mention that no parent, driving their child to school at 7:30 in the morning, wants to hear this sort of crude talk coming over their Christian radio. We should use the same approach to talking about sexual things that the Bible uses.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Renewing Stalled-Out Churches
King David used to give advice to himself, when he was feeling down, discouraged, and frightened. What sort of advice would I give to myself, if I were tasked with advising a stalled-out church on how to get back on fire? Hmmm... Just thinking out loud...I'm working on a discussional Bible study in Judges for tonight, and there are some relevant principles I just read in Joshua 24 (which is the set-up for Judges).
Joshua had them review God's goodness to them over the years. I think this was intended to stir up their faith, rather than to "guilt" them into doing good. Sometimes people remind you of all the good things they've done for you, in order to make you feel obligated to do what they want. I don't think God is that cheap. Instead, I think He was trying to fire up their faith. Review how committed He's been to doing them good, in real, hard, pragmatic terms. I think when you get bogged down, it's easy to forget that God is still on your side, and has a good plan for you. The supreme "good thing" that God has done for us in our past is to send Jesus Christ to die for our sins. Then we can also remember all the answered prayers and distinct interventions He's done for us, as well as for our church.
Then Joshua had them re-commit to obeying God's word. Their forefathers had already done this, back in Exodus 19, but I think every generation needs to do it for themselves. We can't coast along on the momentum of our parents, or the founders of our church, even if we had godly parents or charter founders. This sort of re-commitment to following the Lord has to happen individually and corporately. It has to include the leaders and the rank-and-file.
Jesus' teaching about picking up our cross daily implies that re-commitment is a daily decision. But there may be special times and experiences where that re-commitment is more emotional for us. Joshua marked the day with a rock memorial. Some of us remember key moments in our lives where we got something serious straightened out between us and the Lord, and we got back on track where we needed to be. This tells us that our spirituality and morality comes first before our mission strategizing. We have to get rid of the foreign gods in our hearts, and clean up our acts in the sight of God, before we can expect success in the more "outward" aspect of following the Lord. We mustn't plunge into strategizing and outward-focusing until our own house is in order, or we end up like Israel getting defeated by little Ai because Achan stole some stuff out of Jericho.
Judges chapter 1 suggests that they got back to the work at hand. They set to the task which God had assigned to them. In the Jews' case, it was the mission of driving the godless Canaanites out of the land, as the first step in the bigger plan of creating a nation that would be a light to the nations. They re-focused on their mission, re-organized themselves, picked a clear target area (in their case, Judah and Simeon started with the region called Bezek), and went at it. This adventure was based on a clear geographical scheme that had already been defined by Joshua in chapters 18-19 of his book.
I. Review the grace of God to you, in order to stir and firm your faith.
II. Re-consecrate yourselves to God, unto personal devotion and holiness.
III. Re-apply yourselves to the main mission God has assigned you.
Joshua had them review God's goodness to them over the years. I think this was intended to stir up their faith, rather than to "guilt" them into doing good. Sometimes people remind you of all the good things they've done for you, in order to make you feel obligated to do what they want. I don't think God is that cheap. Instead, I think He was trying to fire up their faith. Review how committed He's been to doing them good, in real, hard, pragmatic terms. I think when you get bogged down, it's easy to forget that God is still on your side, and has a good plan for you. The supreme "good thing" that God has done for us in our past is to send Jesus Christ to die for our sins. Then we can also remember all the answered prayers and distinct interventions He's done for us, as well as for our church.
Then Joshua had them re-commit to obeying God's word. Their forefathers had already done this, back in Exodus 19, but I think every generation needs to do it for themselves. We can't coast along on the momentum of our parents, or the founders of our church, even if we had godly parents or charter founders. This sort of re-commitment to following the Lord has to happen individually and corporately. It has to include the leaders and the rank-and-file.
Jesus' teaching about picking up our cross daily implies that re-commitment is a daily decision. But there may be special times and experiences where that re-commitment is more emotional for us. Joshua marked the day with a rock memorial. Some of us remember key moments in our lives where we got something serious straightened out between us and the Lord, and we got back on track where we needed to be. This tells us that our spirituality and morality comes first before our mission strategizing. We have to get rid of the foreign gods in our hearts, and clean up our acts in the sight of God, before we can expect success in the more "outward" aspect of following the Lord. We mustn't plunge into strategizing and outward-focusing until our own house is in order, or we end up like Israel getting defeated by little Ai because Achan stole some stuff out of Jericho.
Judges chapter 1 suggests that they got back to the work at hand. They set to the task which God had assigned to them. In the Jews' case, it was the mission of driving the godless Canaanites out of the land, as the first step in the bigger plan of creating a nation that would be a light to the nations. They re-focused on their mission, re-organized themselves, picked a clear target area (in their case, Judah and Simeon started with the region called Bezek), and went at it. This adventure was based on a clear geographical scheme that had already been defined by Joshua in chapters 18-19 of his book.
I. Review the grace of God to you, in order to stir and firm your faith.
II. Re-consecrate yourselves to God, unto personal devotion and holiness.
III. Re-apply yourselves to the main mission God has assigned you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
